Skip to main content

About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 50 (some duplicates have been removed)
they rarely use switch back it's incredulous. they feel it's a common experience in their muni experience as it is mine. now we will switch back to me. what i want to say one of the main findings in the report is the fact that out of all the transit systems we interviewed only one used switchbacks as muni does to -- >> can i interrupt you and ask you about that? >> yes. >> perhaps i missed it, but can you talk a little bit about the other jurisdictions that you spoke with? >> you know what we're going to have in jack's report -- he's going to talk about how we chose the other jurisdictions. >> great. >> and jack and i interviewed them together and some of the other jurors joined in on the interviews but our selection was based on the controller's report that compared systems and we selected the list from the controller and contacted those systems. we were also told that all of the systems in europe use switchbacks as a tool, so we took advantage of a vacation to contact three systems in paris, and speak to representative who knew about those three systems. we then confirmd that intervi
in the city. and using switchbacks as a tool muni is deliberately violating rider trust deciding one group of passengers who are riding a bus or train must disrupt their trip and disembark and wait for the next one so the vehicles don't clunk or another line can carry more passengers. in order to smooth traffic the bus or train leaves the route. it's two fold. it eliminates the late bus or train that is actually causing the clumping and so slow it's in way of the others on the line and it improves the on time record because the slow bus or train is no longer operating. it's great for muni. not so great for the left behind passengers. we're not sure when muni decided to deploy operational switch backs in its system but in early 2011 muni passengers began to complain about switchbacks that left them strandd and waiting on strange platforms in the city. according to their own statistics about 41,000 riders a month were left on the street because of switchbacks. we were told switchbacks were implemented in the absence of clumping whenever a bus or train was needod another run. this mean
the integrity of the district. secondly we are talking about use of public finance to repay warrior's private financing of the pier substructure improvement. that may involve debt issuance over a 30-year period of time. we need to have a very detailed discussion about how that is secured, to ensure there are ongoing revenues to continue paying that debt. that is something we will discuss with director of public finance and others who work on finance in the city. i think jennifer has talked a lot about the project financing that we will address through the pro forma analysis and discuss what the city is obliged to repay and community benefits. how specifically is city through the term sheet with warriors establishing a way to pay for police, neighborhood cleanup and additional transit service. those have to be answered in the term sheet. after the term sheet is approved, it would be endorsed by the port commission and board of supervisors. it is non-binding, reflects intention of parties headed into environmental review. during the period of environmental review city staff would negotiate a mo
mentioned at 1 p.m. there is is a land use hearing which will be an informational hearing. we have had presentations in the cac, now the port commission and felt like it was important to do that at the board of supervisors prior to asking decision on fiscal feasibility. depending on what happens today, budget and finance will propose to be at the full board of supervisors november 20th for consideration of fiscal feasibility. because the lead architect is going to be if town on the 19th for the land use we propose to have a workshop, not a full meeting. but design workshop on the lot 330 on tuesday evening to take advantage of him being in town. i have heard concerns about that time. we would obviously bring him back after the holidays to do that again. nothing will progress based on the feet back. it would be a shame not the make full use of his time while here given that he had updated thoughts on that development. many of the neighbors are as interested in what is going on in lot 330 as arena. december 4th we are having third transportation workshop in which peter albert will descri
. that would keep us on a schedule tol begin construction december of 2014. >> i want to say one other thing. in addition to the fire department we have reached out to several other city departments in order to begin to create really a citywide team that looks at this project. we reached out to the mayor in order to have initial input of design on open space and access issues. we reached out to department of emergency management to look how a facility and amount of open space could be used in the case of catastrophic events or emergencies. the deep water berth could be extraordinary helpful to bring in large boats. one of the only natural occurring deep water berth that doesn't need to be dredged. dem sees potential. we have reached out to entertainment and travel to understand how to design and program this space for its maximum benefits and sf travel was here today. i'm waiting patiently for moscone expansion item emerging as key partner in use of facility. another asset for convention business. i wanted to close and have you understand the scope of early work in order to make sure that th
hall. our meeting is fully accessible to persons using wheelchairs. assisting listening devices are available. our meeting is open captioned and sign interpreting is available. braille is available. ask staff for any assistance. the respect everyone's ability to focus on the presentation, please either turn off all mobile phones and pdas, or change these devices to vibrate mode. your cooperation is appreciated. we welcome the public's participation during public comment. you may complete a speakers card available in the front of the room. the mayor's disability council meeting are generally the third friday of each month. our next regular meeting will not be until january 18, 2013, from 1 o'clock to four o'clock here, san francisco city hall, room 400. call the mayor's office on disability for further information or to request accommodations at 415-554-6789. voice. or 415-554-6799, tty. a reminder to all of our guests today to speak slowly into the microphone to assist our captioners and interpreters. we thank you for joining us and ken stein has an announcement regard
proposition to remove, let alone try to rehabilitate it. it is sitting pier for us. as mentioned naturally deep berth. that is the whole reason the port exists on the western side is because we have naturally deep berths and can take advantage of that for the benefit so it is important to us. next door we are building the brandon street war f, requiring removal of peer 36, also row inforced and the building of a new park. the entire cost is 32 million. when i think about this, it will achieve something since 1987, repair a blighted part and put it into economic use. two, removes significant liability for the port. we are investing little money with respect to commitments on the america's cup to ensure the promenade and pier remain attached in event of seismic event. we will get another berth we desperately need at a cost we currently cannot afford. it is clear from our projections that will go away without investment in future as near as possible, ten years. we are making investment in northern waterfront of almost a hundred million to keep the business in san francisco. in doing so we are
possibilities there are for resources for that project, if any. so it is an item that needs to come before us. whether we can do something with it or not, i think we still need to have some transparency about that. >> yeah. i agree, commissioner, that i think it is a discussion we should have. i personally would like to get a tour of the facilities that are out there and any other commissioner that wants to familiarize himself with it. because it seems that we have a permanent place on this agenda that it's talked about. whether we like it or not. so maybe we can like it a little more. >> i actually don't know where they are. i would like to -- >> yeah, we -- >> okay. >> and in fact, we did -- when i first came on as commissioner we did do a tour of the facilities. it was laid out what was going to go where, what was going to be done, some resources. possible resources there were. then it just -- then it was just dropped. this was some time ago. i think it would be good to have other commissioners go on the tour and, you know, kind of get brought up to date on what's happened with that projec
, i will make a suggestion... i mean i am... i do find it meaningful that the city attorney reminds us that we have no legal conflict either individually or collectively. i have no obligation to the executive director, the executive director obligation is to the commission as a group and to the city and county, not personal. i can understand why we don't have staff to investigate their supervisor, that makes complete sense. so in trying to... i just want you to create a window where we didn't just rush to do something that thoughtful people were flagging for. but as we were trying to construct it, as a question of legal conflict and of our confidence to do it and our responsibility to do it, which is the other part mr. gibner raised. there is the past practice, the past example involving the deputy director, where we did seek counsel from others so that it would not be a staff colleague doing the investigation, but this body handled it. and i quite honestly can't remember if i was on at that time, and if so, whether we analyzed this, i came on in 07, probably not in time for that item.
. >> it is inaccurate to say that land use attorney said not been on the board of appeals. >> i was not aware of it if he was practicing san francisco; i would've raise the same objection. >> good afternoon supervisors, my name is dick allen and i had no idea i would be here today yesterday. it was a chance e-mail that i got, that got my attention to the item in the rod & gun club. my curiosity got the best of me and i went through your agenda today. there it was. number one. daryl honda. he is a neighbor of mine. i have known him for at least eight or nine years. i think daryl honda brings a unique skill set that would allow him to be very helpful as a member of the board of appeals. as i said, we are neighbors. we share an alley between 15th and 16th avenue. we have been meeting this alley for a number of years. in the beginning our conversations were about children, schools, the city parks, pools and lake merced. my experience of having served on the planning commission, and i recognize -- having served in those days, our conversations switch to life issues, and dr, discretionary re
a second language individuals not used to coming before the board can be intimidated. how do you plan to incorporate feedback into your decision process? >> if they are before the trying to present the case? is that a question? >> uh huh. >> first i have to finish is your primary language. i have been on the other side of it. sometimes people have a hard time to get the message across. as commissioners you have a good idea what they're trying to get accomplished. you can't evidently speak regarding the case but you can help them regarding procedure and somewhat hold her hand little bit and ease that burden so that it is fair for both parties. >> thank you. that's all the questions from the rules committee. i this time will open up this for public comment, you have two minutes, item number one. please sign up. >> sue hester. two minutes? >> yes. >> the city attorney did not find a lot of law because this would be a violation of the charter before the charter was changed. when the charter was change in the seventies it prohibited anyone who represented the client from bein
us that advantage. we are getting half million square feet. we are building a park for 54,000 feet at cost of 32 million, very similar to what is at piers 3032. this would allow us to get half million square feet of landscaped parkland plus additional open space, plus all the economic benefits in form of fiscal feasibility report. we don't have that balance sheet in our wildest dreams to invest 120 million to accomplish those goals. it will take a big idea. that was my exact testimony. it will take a big idea with lots of benefits. as i was listening to ms. mathis's presentation, i was thinking this will hurt partners in oakland. it is challenging for all of us, but one i'm hoping we can take advantage of of the waterfront and keep this as economically viable as possible. those are the thoughts. i'm happy to take questions if you have them. >> thank you. supervisor kim, did you have a question? thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. mr. rose. if i can ask you to go to the poem. >> madam chair, members of the committee, we have a conclusion and report on page 18 wh
-699-13, appears to use the term to the extent permitted by state law. >> i draw your attention, commissioner hur to section 1040 b. i'm assuming that state law takes precedence over 699-13. i would assume, sir, that you would know that 1040 should take precedence over the city charters or this particular government conduct code which is not even at the city charter level, if i am right. >> 1040 b, clearly states, a public entity is a privilege to refuse to disclose official information... unless disclosure is forbidden. there is nothing >> in the act of the u.s. congress or any other statue that forbids the disclosure of the information that i am seeking. >> except that there is another paragraph, mr. shaw. i mean the basis for miss herrick's analysis is 1040 b2. she is not claiming that there is an act of congress that forbids this. she is claiming that the necessity for perceiving confidentiality out weighs disclosure. >> commissioner hur, let me respond to that question and that is, sunshine ordinance, if you have ever read it specifically bars every agency in san francisco from exerting the
this will hurt partners in oakland. it is challenging for all of us, but one i'm hoping we can take advantage of of the waterfront and keep this as economically viable as possible. those are the thoughts. i'm happy to take questions if you have them. >> thank you. supervisor kim, did you have a question? thank you. why don't we go to the budget analyst report. mr. rose. if i can ask you to go to the poem. >> madam chair, members of the committee, we have a conclusion and report on page 18 where we state the proposed development appears 3032 and seawall lot 10, including rehabilitation of the property at pier 30, 32, multipurpose arena for golden state warrior games and events. public open space. maritime use, retail and related parking. development on seawall lot 330 of residential hotel and retail use and 53.8 million. direct ongoing annual financial benefits between 9.8 million and slightly over ten million. undetermined indirect benefits from grocery receipts tax revenue up to 120 million as you have heard capped in private expenditures, rehabilitation of 3032, reimbursement by port of tho
basis. we do it in open session, and instead of just reporting the numbers tell us what we're going to do to increase those numbers? what is staff doing actively to make sure that those numbers are met during all periods in time? >> i think one of the first things in doing the report on a quarterly basis. one of the things we want to do is work with the project managers and make sure we're tracking on a payment by payment basis where they are within the meeting the lbe goals, so we can look at that and have conversations with the contractors as we go along, and keep pushing them. how are you going to meet this goal? how are you going to meet this goal? it looks like you're running around it. i think those contracts are less of an issue because you have already planned out the work for that contract, and it might be that the lbe is the person doing the dry wall and the participating so they're coming at the end of the contract. as you're putting up the steel and everything you see low lbe participation. you will see that at the end, so i think for those we can keep an eye on th
this probability in the ambiguity of how this definition of demolition is being used and this in particular reference to registered architect saying it is, builders who cannot submit warnings based on some kind of signature by engineer saying it's not and so i'm just kind off opposed to this question. >> if i may add these plans are from a licensed architect and i don't know if you would like that hear from the project sponsors architect since it's their plans how they would like to proceed with this >>> thank you commissioners my name is andy roger and is i'm a licensed architect and i have been practicing in san francisco for about 14 years. in fact, we are very much consistent with abiding by the city's stated demolition callations and i would like to point out that mr. mr. smith, planter questioned me several times about our calculations and so i went back to him several time and made sure that we were right on. the crux of the matter has to do with what constitutes of the removal of a wall and what i understand and what i have been led to understand by the planning department is
of the people of the city and we are happy to have john fung head this up and behalf of the board and all of us and thank you mr. secretary. mr. administrator. senator feinstein, leader pelosi, congress woman spear and mayor lee and thank you all for being here and now it's time to make it official. it's sign that document. okay. [applause] >> thank you tom. and as we're getting ready to sign this grand slam document let me make sure we give a great appreciation to our county transportation authority who has been administering the funds for this great project and a great shout out to the union square improvement district. i know there are businesses big and small that will suffer a little bit from the construction but they're going to be patient. they know the result of this is a great future for our great city and thank you to all of the businesses and we will be communicating with them all the time with all of the agencies. decades now ladies and gentlemen city residents and our city will know the vision started 20 years ago to today we built a great transportation system we're going to
. >> is such a beautiful addition to our public art in san francisco. thank you for joining us. it was nice to meet you. and thank you for telling us about your beautiful mural. thanks for watching "culturewire." >> welcome to the regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. >> submissioner sierra. here. >> submissioner leeann whiffen. >> commissioners rennee have been excused. >> i want to talk about the decision to hear and take possible action on the complaints. mr. chat field who is not here, wrote mr. shaw in may, the ethics commission regularly handles referals from the task force, however it will not ajudd kate these matters, in both complaints. he repeated that in his confidential memo to mr. shen and to mark kets of the district attorney office. because the allegation involves johnson and croy executive director of the commission, the agency cannot handle the matter. period. the commission is engaged in the discussion with the various outside agency and so forth and so on. that was in august of last year. i did a record search of your files. i just came back from sitting in the comm
could tell us orton's experience and history of doing -- looking at other properties and where you've done your work. >> sure. this project is sometimes charged as a 270,000 square foot project. in actuality, it really is seven separate projects, seven different types of building construction. so, going into that, one type would be similar to the office building. the first one we saw, the building 101, the l-shaped building at the corner of illinois and 20th, that's a concrete building. office building, rehab. probably the most really typical building that with just completed in oakland is a 10-story mid rise, 1440 broadway t. was well reported in the news because unfortunately right after we bought it, the [speaker not understood] destroyed the building and it's right there occupy oakland. and we've come back and built that. we had that building to its historic pinnacle and it's absolutely beautiful. our lead tenant in it is a company, well known company in the east bay called oaklandish. that is a design company. well known design company. so, the two office buildings, 101, 104,
have jessie larson and greg burk. mr. young, do you have any announcements for us? >> yes. please turnoff all cell phones and electronic devices. completed speaker cards and any documents to be included as part of the [speaker not understood] should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on december 4, 2012 supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. would you call item 1? >> item 1, resolution approving cellular service equipment sites leases between new cingular wireless pcs, llc nextel of california, inc., and sprint spectrum realty, july 1st, 2009 for the term of five years and approving amendment 1 to the cellular service equipment leases. >> thank you very much for this item. we have cathy wetener from the airport. >> good morning, chair chu, supervisor avalos. [speaker not understood]. the airport is here seeking your retroactive approval for four leases with cingular, sprint-nextel, verizon and t-mobile to continue to provide cellular services to our passengers at cfo. at this time we're also requesting approval for modificati
for a determination, the ultimate determination, or how has that worked in the past, so if you could educate us on that, that would be great. >> and to the extent that there was reference to public comment to a previous matter involving staff, if you know the specifics of that one. >> sure. >> it would be helpful. >> i can't actually speak to what happened in this case because i was not involved in the decision to send it to an outside body. but i can tell you that this practice is consistent with the past practice of the ethics commission. when either a member of the ethics commission staff or even a member of the ethics commission is charged with a violation of one of the laws under your jurisdiction, that you find an outside entity to handle the investigation, rather than in the shoes of the executive director. but then, the complaint comes back to the commission ultimately to decide. i believe that the reason for that is, that these laws, that the complain of governmental conduct code and the city charters authoritieses the ethics commission to make the determinations not a body pointed by
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 50 (some duplicates have been removed)